Leading Off: For Workers, COP27 Lives Up To Low Expectations

[Editorial Note: we are devoting this issue to various aspects of COP27]

Though hardly surprising, COP27 made it abundantly clear that workers just don’t explicitly figure into the calculations of the parties gathering in the negotiating rooms who bicker over the details of climate change.

More explicitly, in the wake of COP27, unions must confront a fundamental question: why should precious and finite resources (time and money) be spent trying to play within a framework that is entirely oblivious of workers?

The game is fixed against workers’, and unions, in such a fundamental way that the U.N., and the related international forums on climate change, are simply not the places workers will ever secure a “high bar” Just Transition—and, rather than leave this observation at a complaints-only mode, we have a recommendation in  “Ideas” (below) for an alternative.

This is quite obvious in two ways. Let’s first examine some of the key language used by COP27 in its final documents.

The final COP27 document—the so-called “implementation” document—does not use the word “workers” or “unions” even once.

That’s not a misprint: you cannot find the word “workers” or “unions” used even once.

To be sure, there is flowery language promising action “in a manner that is just and inclusive while minimizing negative social or economic impacts” and pointing to the importance of “lives and livelihoods of local communities”. And, eureka! There is a mention of “workforce“—once.

In a second, much-commented on, document—a “loss and damage” funding agreement, especially oriented towards lower-income countries—none of the promised funds (amounts still to be determined) would be explicitly funneled to a Just Transition for workers. Similar to the implementation document, there is very general language pushing for economic restitution. For example, funds would be used “in responding to economic and non-economic loss and damage” but the “economic” loss and damage isn’t tied directly to ensuring equal (or better) incomes for workers in the future.

One could explain away these shortcomings as simply the miscues or oversights of well-intentioned drafters of official documents. We won’t do that here.

Instead, let’s point out a few crucial points about the built-in bias against workers in such forums:

• The negotiating parties who have the most access and the most influence over the agenda are the same parties—largely, governments—who have done very little within national borders to commit to Just Transition—even the “lite” version, let alone the “high bar” that what we advocate for here;
• Indeed, in many of the countries represented by the major negotiating parties, unions are under attacks and workers do not have a real right to organize. We think here, for example, of both the United States and China. So, what makes anyone think that, suddenly, the representatives of such countries would undergo a religious conversion and embrace workers’ rights in a Just Transition process;
• The very nature of the United Nations—and, specifically, the International Labor Organization—is to foster a tri-partite scheme, which gives business interests a seat at the table;
• And, as we will show in the “Spotlight” section below, not surprisingly, business interests—specifically, fossil fuel-connected companies—have an outsized presence at COP. What odds would one lay in a betting parlor over who has more access behind closed doors, companies or workers’ representatives?

Every bullet point above is a long-standing reality.

Here are some observations from those who attended COP 27—where we have provided an option to share views anonymously, we did so verifying the accuracy of the person’s position.

A veteran union COP attendee, who has witnessed the debates and discussion, offered a strong dissent, delivered to Just Transition For All anonymously because it isn’t (yet) the official position of this individual’s influential, large union:

“The overarching decision for COP27 included a number of mentions of “just transition”, although the term is not clearly defined as worker-centered and oriented around the creation of decent work and quality jobs. Perhaps a bigger win is the inclusion of “social dialogue” in para. 51, although again, this is not defined as worker-centered but only with general reference to “stakeholders”. ​The decision also states that there will be a “high-level ministerial” on just transition at the next COP, but it’s unclear what exactly this would entail and whether trade unions would be involved. In general, however, the mere inclusion of these terms within the overarching COP decision is a far cry from the meaningful implementation of just transition and the continued reluctance of Parties to insert “labour rights” and “workers” into the text lends itself to a watered down understanding of just transition (e.g. as “just” for developing countries rather than workers in all contexts). Given the UNFCCC’s consensus-based model of negotiations and the reluctance of a number of parties to incorporate language that explicitly recognizes the need to protect worker’s rights and livelihoods, along with the outsized presence of oil lobbyists and other corporate interests which drown out NGO and CSO voices, COP conferences increasingly appear to be a tremendous waste of resources and carbon, where union representatives fly thousands of miles from around the world simply to play a token role in legitimizing a broken process. In fact, NGO/CSOs should give serious consideration to boycotting future COPs unless the UNFCCC can ensure they will be able to provide substantial input during the negotiations and that the participation of corporate interests will be severely curtailed. [the emphasis is added]

​Frederik Moch, the director of  Structural Policy, Industry and Services for the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB), which is an umbrella organization for eight German trade unions representing more than 6 million people, balances the statements versus the practical reality:

The fact that the states at COP27 agreed on a fund for the Global South is progress that strengthens international solidarity. The commitment to just transition in the cover decision is also a success and recognizes the crucial role played by the workers. In it, the states commit themselves that social dialogue and social security should be the basis for the transition. This is important and supports union demands around the world. At the same time, it is completely incomprehensible that human and employee rights do not appear in the cover decision. The so-called Just Energy Transition Partnerships, which are increasingly being concluded with industrialized and developing countries, are also concrete…These international agreements are always on an abstract level, the implementation has to happen locally. But now it is up to the governments to implement these agreements…Even if progress at the climate conferences is like a snail race, there is currently no better alternative. In order for workers’ interests to be taken into account in this process, it is necessary for the trade unions to be present at the negotiations. However, it is also clear that the international climate conferences will not replace the necessary reduction steps and the concrete steps for a just transition. Trade unions must therefore put pressure on governments and companies to invest in ambitious climate protection and a just transition that guarantees decent jobs on a living planet.

One of the most important issues that must be acknowledged within efforts by unions is a hard truth: the relatively richer global North starts from a somewhat better position than most of the workers in countries in the global South—to state perhaps an obvious point, workers’ incomes are far better in the global North and, generally speaking, workers in the global North can expect a relatively stronger network of social service support (for example, health care, public pensions and unemployment/redundancy benefits).

A long-time union organizer in the global South and veteran COP observer tells this story:

The final COP27 decision covered the commitment by developing countries to establish a loss and damage fund, albeit there was so much vagueness surrounding the fund. For the working class, there was no reference to advancing and protecting workers‘ rights in sectoral transition, including critical sectors such as mining, industrial, energy, and the automotive sectors—other than just agriculture (whose focus is on food security). While there was strong solidarity between the global North and South, Northern non-state actors have more access to their respective parties to raise their demands. The reality is that social partners in the South do not, and the global North cannot always speak for or represent positions from partners from the South. There is only so much that “corridor lobbying and engagement” during the COP can achieve to advance the policy and practice needs of non-state actors that want to advance environmental, labour, trade union, and human rights.  While there are so many similarities and despite this solidarity, there are also areas of disagreement. So, from a global South perspective, COP27 did not address the key development issues that the South continues to try to advance including sustainable livelihoods and labour rights, social protection, and concrete alternatives for the South to phase out fossil fuels and diversify its economies into non-extractive sectors while addressing poverty needs. There is very little engagement between the Parties and non-state actors in the South, and thus limits the development potential of what a “Just Transition” would be.

We assume the thousands of people who participated in COP 27 enjoyed the beautiful beaches of Sharm el-Sheikh. But, it’s now time to consider whether the journeys to future COPs amount to no more than climate change “summit tourism” and whether the money and time translate into anything worthwhile.

SPONSOR MESSAGE

A message from the Australian Mining And Energy Union

We are fighting back, not just for ourselves but for the future generation of mineworkers. Workers deserve better. Our families and communities deserve better. Visit us

Spotlight: Fossil Fuel Industry Has Bigger Seat At The COP27 Table Than Workers

Ideas: Two Easy Steps To Create An Alternative To COP

Opinion: Trade Union Movement’s Fight Back Sets Up Death or Glory Battle

By: Travis Wacey

It was always going to be a challenging terrain for trade unions to advance the interest of workers at the recent UN Climate Change Conference. The host country or “President” of the COP plays a significant role in setting the themes and agendas for discussion, the priorities and negotiating parameters.

As outlined by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) COP 27 host Egypt is one of the ten worst countries for working people in the world due to repressive laws, prosecution of strikers, and union-busting and dismissals. Indeed, when other delegates snorkelled in the Red Sea or went shopping or to ritzy casinos on the “rest day,” trade union delegates at our strategy day heard of the struggle of an Egyptian trade unionist who suffered incarceration for calling a strike in the oil refining industry.

Another challenge has been growing for years and it came to a head at COP 27. By way of background, the union movement’s demands when it comes to climate change mitigation and adaptation is based around the concept of a “Just Transition” for impacted workers.

The idea behind the provision of a Just Transition for workers is that actions to address climate change have whole of societal benefits but the burden and dislocation of that necessary action (mitigation, adaptation etc) often falls on a relatively small subset of society (The ITUC estimates approximately 210 million workers) Rather than shoulder the burden alone, like the benefits deriving from the action the burden associated with the action should be shared across society, lessening the pain for those directly adversely impacted such as workers in high emission intensive sectors and industries.

With the world facing a dual crisis of catastrophic climate change and inequality, workers need to be at the centre of shifts to sustainable production to ensure that inequality is not exacerbated. This goal can be achieved through the establishment of democratic processes to develop consensus on the goals and pathways to sustainability with labour rights respected and protected, decent work provided, social protection adequate and available to those who need it and workers guaranteed to be treated as active participants, not as passive bystanders in the transition.

These imperatives are outlined in detail in the International Labour Organisation (ILO’s) 2015 “Guidelines for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all” (described by the head of the Trade Union delegation at COP 27 as “Our bible”) The Guidelines, amongst other requirements, stress the necessity for social dialogue (the process whereby social partners [trade unions and employer organisations] negotiate, often in collaboration with the government, to influence the arrangement and development of work-related issues, labour market policies, social protection, taxation, or other economic policies.)

Ever since Just Transition for workers was enshrined by the parties in the Paris Agreement there have been attempts to co-opt the language and concept by other stakeholders and parties including parties which are outright antagonistic to key elements of the Just Transition agenda like respect for workers’ rights. A growing theme is countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who are very antagonistic to trade unions and workers rights demanding a “Just Transition” away from their elite dominated nation state’s economic dependence on oil revenue thereby hijacking and diluting the Just Transition terminology for their own purposes.

Our worst fears about the dilution of “Just Transition” were initially realised when the President in the opening days of COP 27 released an alleged summary of a high-level discussions that defined Just Transition to be, not about workers or social dialogue at all, but broader objectives of enacting adequate finance, technology transfer, capacity building and major climate investments from developed to developing countries… all necessary, worthwhile initiatives but a departure  from the Paris Agreement’s conception of Just Transition.

Trade unions mobilised and lobbied parties and key interventions helped stem the tide. The Canadian delegation was the most forthright of the parties, demanding a rights-based approach and Just Transition for workers, complaining about attempts to dilute the concept of Just Transition, and presenting the trade union movement’s preferred wording.

Australia also played a tentatively positive role by advocating for a Just Transition of the workforce and the need for social dialogue. The effort was valiant but there was an acknowledgement from the negotiators that more work was necessary in the lead up to the next COP on these issues so that key concepts could be better understood and thus better articulated after so many years of hiatus on this topic under Conservative Coalition Governments.

The result of COP27 sets the scene for the next battle on this key concept, a battle which will determine whether workers receive a “Just Transition” or “Just a transition” as one commentator from the Climate Action Network described it.

There was an agreement for the establishment on a work program on Just Transition in the COP27 implementation plan and a key acknowledgement that Just Transition is founded on social dialogue.

However, glaring is an absence of commitments to key pre-requisites of a Just Transition such as pledges to ensure the right to free trade unions, collective bargaining and occupational health and safety. Indeed, commitments around respecting workers’ rights were absent in the COP’s key final decisions in areas of mitigation, adaptation, climate finance, loss and damage and carbon markets.

The next essential step is for trade unions to unpack the elements of Just Transition which are worker’s priorities and educate, agitate, and organise around these elements directly with trade union members so that Governments at future COPs are sufficiently attuned and on notice to the needs, agenda and demands of workers in the broader battle against climate change.

Wacey is the National Policy Research Officer for the Manufacturing Division of the Australia’s Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union

Links

IndustriALL: IndustriALL Global Union represents 50 million workers in 140 countries in the mining, energy and manufacturing sectors and is active in the Just Transition debate.

COP27: since we focus in this issue on COP27,  we are offering this link again. It was the official website for the meeting.